From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meyer v. Ford Motor Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1967
28 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

May 8, 1967


Motion by appellant to resettle order of this court, made on March 20, 1967 and amended by further order made on April 10, 1967, on the ground that the judgment under review was resettled, nunc pro tunc, and as so resettled was entered on April 14, 1967. Motion granted as follows: The decision of this court, dated March 20, 1967 [ 27 A.D.2d 851], as amended on April 10, 1967 [ 27 A.D.2d 941], is further amended to read as follows: "Resettled judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 14, 1967, (1) affirmed, insofar as it is in favor of defendant Ford Motor Company, without costs; and (2) reversed on the law, insofar as it is in favor of defendant Russell Kuzmack; new trial ordered as between plaintiff and said defendant, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event; and action severed accordingly. No questions of fact have been considered as between plaintiff and defendant Kuzmack. Appeal from `order' of said court entered April 18, 1966, dismissed without costs. As to the appeal from the `order' entered April 18, 1966, supposedly made upon a decision dated April 11, 1966, denying plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict in defendant Ford's favor, no order was entered or made upon the decision. No appeal lies from a decision. Plaintiff was injured when defendant Kuzmack's car, in which plaintiff was a passenger, suddenly left the road and struck a stone wall. We find no error in the court's dismissal, at the end of the entire case, of plaintiff's claim against defendant Ford for negligent manufacture, or in the jury's verdict in favor of said defendant upon plaintiff's claim against it for breach of warranty. We accordingly affirm the judgment as to defendant Ford. As to defendant Kuzmack, it is our opinion that the decision in Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp. ( 17 N.Y.2d 132), although rendered after the trial in the instant case, controls our review of the trial as to the case against Kuzmack. Accordingly, since the complaint as against Kuzmack was dismissed at the close of plaintiff's case in chief, a new trial is required with respect to the case against Kuzmack." The orders of this court, dated March 20, 1967 and April 10, 1967, are amended accordingly. Motion by appellant for reargument denied. Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted insofar as it pertains to respondent Ford Motor Company and denied insofar as it pertains to respondent Kuzmack. In our opinion, questions of law have arisen, insofar as the action as against Ford Motor Company is concerned, which ought to be reviewed. Ughetta, Acting P.J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Meyer v. Ford Motor Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1967
28 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Meyer v. Ford Motor Company

Case Details

Full title:HARRY MEYER, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Respondent. HARRY MEYER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 8, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)